Each of the areas in the Whole-Place Community Budgets scheme has identified potential benefits from taking a more integrated approach to frontline services, focusing on outcomes like preventing avoidable hospital admissions or reducing reoffending. Greater Manchester, which covers ten local authorities, has estimated net savings of some £270 million over five years, while in West Cheshire savings of £56 million are estimated for the same period. In general, government has only limited information for identifying opportunities for integration or making an assessment of costs and benefits, which is needed to support the case for integration. In some instances where government has identified integration opportunities, benefits have not been achieved because of implementation difficulties. While the centre of government has recognized the importance of integration, it does not have clearly defined responsibilities to support or encourage frontline integration initiatives across government. It is early days for Whole-Place Community Budgets, central government and the four local areas have worked together effectively to assess the case for local service reforms. The true scale of potential benefits will become clear only if projects are implemented and evaluated robustly. Foundations have been laid but continuing collaboration - including sharing of data - between local and central government and delivery partners is essential to maximize the potential of Whole-Place Community Budgets. Accompanying this report, the NAO has released a case study looking at the four Whole-Place Community Budget areas, finding that these areas have taken a positive first step in assessing the case for integration (HC 1040, ISBN 9780102981339)

"This book focuses on the integration of new technologies into digital government, generating new insights into e-government interoperability"--Provided by publisher.

For many years Governments have sought to breakdown silo working in departments and ensure better integration across departments to ensure more effective services and better value for money. The Cabinet Office and the Treasury are best placed to support and promote integration across the Government, as they are responsible for coordinating policy and allocating monies. However, they are failing to provide the necessary strategic leadership and are not doing enough to tackle the barriers to integration. These include the lack of good information to identify where the Government could do better by joining services, funding arrangements which make it difficult for bodies to invest in joint working, and the risk that Accounting Officers are reluctant to pool budgets in case they lose control and authority. In contrast, the Whole-Place Community Budgets programme has involved local public bodies and central government working together to develop evidence-based plans for new integrated services. Four local areas have analysed in detail the expected costs and benefits of integration and their findings show clear potential for improving outcomes and reducing costs. The Department for Communities and Local Government, which manages the Whole-Place Community Budgets programme, has provided effective support to date. However, if other central government departments are not committed to Whole-Place Community Budgets it may, like similar initiatives in the past, fail to deliver any significant and lasting change. The programme must be evaluated properly to see whether the early promise translates to real change on the ground and improves value for money.

Integrating Social Care into the Delivery of Health Care: Moving Upstream to Improve the Nation's Health was released in September 2019, before the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a global pandemic in March 2020. Improving social conditions remains critical to improving health outcomes, and integrating social care into health care delivery is more relevant than ever in the context of the pandemic and increased strains placed on the U.S. health care system. The report and its related products ultimately aim to help improve health and health equity, during COVID-19 and beyond. The consistent and compelling evidence on how social determinants shape health has led to a growing recognition throughout the health care sector that improving health and health equity is likely to depend â€" at least in part â€" on mitigating adverse social determinants. This recognition has been bolstered by a shift in the health care sector towards value-based payment, which incentivizes improved health outcomes for persons and populations rather than service delivery alone. The combined result of these changes has been a growing emphasis on health care systems addressing patients' social risk factors and social needs with the aim of improving health outcomes. This may involve health care systems linking individual patients with government and community social services, but important questions need to be answered about when and how health care systems should integrate social care into their practices and what kinds of infrastructure are required to facilitate such activities. Integrating Social Care into the Delivery of Health Care: Moving Upstream to Improve the Nation's Health examines the potential for integrating services addressing social needs and the social determinants of health into the delivery of health care to achieve better health outcomes. This report assesses approaches to social care integration currently being taken by health care providers and systems, and new or emerging approaches and opportunities; current roles in such integration by different disciplines and organizations, and new or emerging roles and types of providers; and current and emerging efforts to design health care systems to improve the nation's health and reduce health inequities.

'Local government is a key topic for EU scholars. Yet, it has been somewhat under-explored, with the literature on the EU having largely neglected it. This book does much to fill this gap by providing an empirical and theoretical account of the role of local government in the EU. It provides a well informed and very thoughtful account of the different relations between the different elements of European local government'. -Neill Nugent, Professor Emeritus of European Politics, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK 'The authors work with the analytical framework of an integration cycle, according to which local government reacts to the impact of EU decisions by adapting its internal organisation and external interactions in order to shape European integration in general and EU policies in particular. Empirically it is shown how complex this cycle is and how its results emerge from an interplay of formal and informal, vertical and horizontal interactions'. -Hubert Heinelt, Retired Professor of Public Administration, Public Policy and Local Politics, TU Darmstadt - Institute for Political Science, Germany This book addresses the 'bigger picture' of local-European relations and adds a new dimension to existing studies on multilevel governance and the Europeanisation of local government. Drawing from a combination of European integration theories and operational approaches, it introduces the idea of an integration cycle in which local government responds to the top-down impact of the EU internally, horizontally and vertically. This volume presents a wide range of empirical examples to demonstrate how local authorities across Europe have changed their practices, orientation and preferences, and adapted their institutions and organisation. By mobilising formally and informally, they participate in European governance and contribute to the future trajectories of European integration, thereby completing the integration cycle. Marius Guderjan is a Lecturer and Researcher in British Politics at the Centre for British Studies at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany. Tom Verhelst is an Assistant Professor in Local Politics at the Centre for Local Politics at Ghent University, Belgium.

A strong and effective centre of government is vital for the effective operation of government as a whole and for ensuring a focus on improved value for money for the taxpayer. However, there is a lack of clarity about the centre's precise role, particularly the respective responsibilities of the Cabinet Office, HM Treasury and the Prime Minister's Office (Number 10), and how they work together as a coherent centre. The centre sometimes intervenes to address issues with high-priority government programmes, but has too often failed to do so effectively or at an early enough stage. In part, this is because the centre does not have a joined-up single view of strategic risks across government, meaning it is often reactive in its response rather than able to anticipate potentially serious problems. There are gaps in key skills at the centre and across departments, such as financial management capability and contracting expertise, which are compounded because government repeatedly fails to learn lessons and share good practice from past experience. The Government announced that the roles of Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service will be combined, and there will be a new Chief Executive post at the centre of government. Implementing these changes may provide an opportunity to make progress on the role of the centre

This title was first published in 2002: Changing economic, institutional and market environments have turned the spatial inter-relationships thought to exist in China upside-down. Through an investigation of the beef industry, this text builds a picture of where regionalization and integration are heading in China. It examines the impacts of market forces, industry characteristics, relative factor endowments and government influence on the spatial organization of activities. It reveals the influence of government as priorities are re-assessed and as markets and industries develop, as well as exploring the extent of regional co-ordination and co-operation and how central and local government policies and strategies reconcile. The volume also contains regional assessments of the beef industry in 12 key producing provinces and the key consumption areas of Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong.

This book constitutes the refereed proceedings of the 10th International Conference, EGOV 2011, held in Delft, The Netherlands, in August/September 2011. The 38 revised full papers presented were carefully reviewed and selected from 84 submissions. The papers are organized in topical sections on foundations, acceptance and diffusion, governance, openess and institutions, architecture, security and interoperability, transformation, values and change.